It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

China Builds Second Aircraft Carrier

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 03:41 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 03:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: boomer135

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: infinityorder

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: infinityorder

originally posted by: noeltrotsky

originally posted by: sg1642
...Carriers are game changers in warfare and offer extensive capabilities and applications...


Most top military planners see aircraft carriers as past ruling the seas now. Anti-ship missiles have improved so much that in truth defending the floating city isn't easy and certainly isn't guaranteed. Imagine 100 over the horizon missiles skimming the waters surface all headed for the one big ship. If one gets through the ship is toast...along with billions of equipment it was carrying.

They are great to project force against 2nd tier opponents or lower, but in the next really big war you won't see Aircraft carriers out there until things have been softened up significantly.


I Agree.

Which is why China developed the mach 10 missile.

To neutralize our carriers if need be.

We have no countermeasure for these.

Maybe our new laser system once it if fully shaken down?

Now though....our missile interceptors would be useless, and poor c-wis would even see it coming.

FEL on every nuclear powered vessel coming to a theatre near you. They have also figured out how to make it effective in poor conditions. Speed of Light > Mach 10.


I agree. The speed of light is > mach 10.

The speed of detection acquisition and attack though.....

Not so much.

At mach 10 a missile will go from 100 miles to target in seconds, not minutes.

Aegis would be the first to detect it, if one of our radar birds didn't get lucky.

If they haven't used stealth coatings( which they obviously would) to make detection harder.

I am not convinced the system can acquire and kill in less than a couple seconds.

Which is what it would have.

Once they had a visual on it....it is too late already.

I am not sure if there even are any stealth coatings that survive at Mach 10. It would acquire and kill in much less than a second.

I also highly doubt China has a missile that goes Mach 10. I think Russia's fastest missile is Mach 3-5. Russia should be years ahead of China, Missiles are their forte.


oh its very real actually...

DF-21

The missile is real. Is the Mach10 capability real, or simply their claim?



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 04:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce
Considering China has built no aircraft carriers, this one will be many many years away until it is in service,


Wouldnt be so sure on that.. Its estimated that they saved themselfs 20-30 years development on militaty kit with the pentagon hacks..

purp..



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 05:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse

originally posted by: AnuTyr
a reply to: sg1642

Their gunna need it. Just look at where all the population in china hangs out. They might have a large population. But besides civil war, The army is basically policing it's own citizens. Now an air-craft carrier to top it off.

China i don't think anyones going to attack you unless you do something stupid. I mean someone could. Considering all of Chinas major cities are along the pacific coast. That puts them in a vulnerable position. So the extra Air-craft carrier. I totally understand it.



The USA sure isn't going to attack China, our Economy would collapse because there wouldn't be hardly any product in the stores to sell.


That's how the US set up China. But don't worry, Africa is at their rescue.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 06:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: stumason

And you have to walk before you run. Or should they have started with full up high speed tests, against targets that started hidden?

The BMD is going to be hard pressed to defend against it. China isn't going to launch one missile at a time against the carrier. They're going to have multiple launches at once coming in trying to overwhelm the defenses.


This was exactly my point in bringing this up.

If you wanted to have an honest chance of defeating the american military you would have to do something about the carriers, they are just too powerful.

Now with our current known state of the art.

We have developed a solid state laser, it will be deployed on ships and aircraft.

We already have a 767 group with chemical lasers that can shoot down an ICBM if it is within 600 miles during its first stage.

Suppose they could hit these before they get going....

But I don't know....900 miles is well beyond the 600 mile known effective range of laser weapons.

So the Chinese would have a good standoff weapon.

Keeping our carriers 1,000 miles away makes them all but useless without constant inflight refueling.

Making missions long.

And then once you come into the effective range of Chinese AA.....they could throw so much crap into the sky it would make the night campaign over Iraq in the 90s seem like a small fireworks show.

I wouldn't want to fly into that.
edit on 5-2-2015 by infinityorder because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 07:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: boomer135

I think you're confusing it with another missile. You simply cannot put the one you quoted onto an aircraft. It needs a large, stable launch platform on the ground. It us essentially a converted nuclear missile.


Yep you are correct. I was confusing it with the CM-400AKG Wrecker. Another Chinese "hypersonic" air launched cruise missile based on the YJ-12. Its technically called a hypersonic cruise missile because it reaches speeds of 5.5 mach at its terminal stage. It has a skimming capability, and also can fly the high altitude first cruise stage followed by a steep dive on final approach. Thats the one i was thinking about with the electro-optical image recognition system that can identify targets like an american aircraft carrier (remember the huge painted aircraft carrier shapes in the chinese deserts?). It was originally developed to target fixed and slow moving targets, however the export version that pakistan got is called an aircraft carrier killer. A huge difference between this and the 21 is the range. The CM-400 only has a range between 180-250km, which would require the fighter or bomber carrying it to have to deal with the CSG defenses (thus my thinking about the J-20 carrying the missile).

Sorry for the confusion!




The 400 kg CM-400AKG Wrecker is termed by CASIC as hypersonic since it can reach speed greater than Mach 5.5 at its terminal stage, and its guidance system includes GPS, onboard radar, and an image recognition system that can identify a specific target, it can also be pre-programed to destroy the ground targets with precision by uploading the digital imagery of the target or it can be re-targeted using its active radar seeker. Originally developed as an air-to-surface missile (ASM) against fixed and slow moving target,[16] an anti-shipping missile (AShM) is also developed for Pakistan, which claims it as "an aircraft carrier killer". [17][18] The two different CM-400AKG models can be easily distinguished by the difference between the arrangement of forward control surfaces of the two model: the AShM version has four short and smaller forward control surfaces, [19] while the ASM version has four much larger forward control surfaces.[20][21][22] Pakistan is the first export customer of CM-400AKG, deploying it on CAC/PAC JF-17 Thunder. [17]
AVIC gives ranges of 100-240km for the two versions with their 150kg blast warhead or 200kg penetration warhead


source



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 07:41 AM
link   
a reply to: infinityorder

We actually don't currently have an airborne laser system. The YAL-1A is in the Boneyard.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: infinityorder

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: stumason

And you have to walk before you run. Or should they have started with full up high speed tests, against targets that started hidden?

The BMD is going to be hard pressed to defend against it. China isn't going to launch one missile at a time against the carrier. They're going to have multiple launches at once coming in trying to overwhelm the defenses.


This was exactly my point in bringing this up.

If you wanted to have an honest chance of defeating the american military you would have to do something about the carriers, they are just too powerful.

Now with our current known state of the art.

We have developed a solid state laser, it will be deployed on ships and aircraft.

We already have a 767 group with chemical lasers that can shoot down an ICBM if it is within 600 miles during its first stage.

Suppose they could hit these before they get going....

But I don't know....900 miles is well beyond the 600 mile known effective range of laser weapons.

So the Chinese would have a good standoff weapon.

Keeping our carriers 1,000 miles away makes them all but useless without constant inflight refueling.

Making missions long.

And then once you come into the effective range of Chinese AA.....they could throw so much crap into the sky it would make the night campaign over Iraq in the 90s seem like a small fireworks show.

I wouldn't want to fly into that.
that's exactly what I was going to touch on took the words out of my mouth. The current laser technology is clearly acknowledged by the US but would you say it is actually a lot further developed and more capable than anything we know about?



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 11:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: infinityorder

We actually don't currently have an airborne laser system. The YAL-1A is in the Boneyard.


Really?

They scrapped it?

Well with the new solid state lasers all one needs is power, no need to carry thousands of gallons of chemicals .....

I guess it does make sense, but damn.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: sg1642

originally posted by: infinityorder

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: stumason

And you have to walk before you run. Or should they have started with full up high speed tests, against targets that started hidden?

The BMD is going to be hard pressed to defend against it. China isn't going to launch one missile at a time against the carrier. They're going to have multiple launches at once coming in trying to overwhelm the defenses.


This was exactly my point in bringing this up.

If you wanted to have an honest chance of defeating the american military you would have to do something about the carriers, they are just too powerful.

Now with our current known state of the art.

We have developed a solid state laser, it will be deployed on ships and aircraft.

We already have a 767 group with chemical lasers that can shoot down an ICBM if it is within 600 miles during its first stage.

Suppose they could hit these before they get going....

But I don't know....900 miles is well beyond the 600 mile known effective range of laser weapons.

So the Chinese would have a good standoff weapon.

Keeping our carriers 1,000 miles away makes them all but useless without constant inflight refueling.

Making missions long.

And then once you come into the effective range of Chinese AA.....they could throw so much crap into the sky it would make the night campaign over Iraq in the 90s seem like a small fireworks show.

I wouldn't want to fly into that.
that's exactly what I was going to touch on took the words out of my mouth. The current laser technology is clearly acknowledged by the US but would you say it is actually a lot further developed and more capable than anything we know about?


Oh ya.

If we know about it skunk works has something much better in the wings.

They always have some black project that is way better than what they show us.

We only get the crappy hand me down stuff.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: infinityorder

A 747 flying over hostile territory isn't conducive to keeping it in the inventory long.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: infinityorder

A 747 flying over hostile territory isn't conducive to keeping it in the inventory long.
surely with development the laser technology can be used in the same role as phalanx or goalkeeper for example and surpass them in effectiveness and capability?



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

The Navy is testing one now. The YAL-1 was part of the ABM program, designed to hit ICBMs in the boost phase. Like all lasers they couldn't get enough range.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: sg1642

The Navy is testing one now. The YAL-1 was part of the ABM program, designed to hit ICBMs in the boost phase. Like all lasers they couldn't get enough range.
what do you think the outcome will be?



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: sg1642

As a close in point defense weapon lasers should work well.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Of course, they need to test it - I just won't buy into the hype until we see it in action. Many a new system has come and gone over the years that promised much but ultimately, in a real life situation, failed to deliver and if they did, it was after extensive battle testing and modification, in some cases quite a way from the original design spec.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason

And all this has to do is show the capability to work, and it will keep carriers out of range of OTH radars that can find them. Which means keeping their strike aircraft farther out, which means less payload when they do go after targets.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Which has already happened - haven't the US moved their CBG's further out away from the straights? Also, the US has worked on the "kill-chain" of such a system, apparently. Knock that out, it matters not.

My commentary in this thread is not to argue with you Zaph, but point out these often touted "carrier killers" the ATS crowd love to love are not the super weapons they are made out to be. In order for the DF-21 to be effective, a lot has to go right for the Chinese.

They need to know where the Carrier is for starters, either from satellites (which are at risk), or submarines (at risk from the CBG's usual defences) to the simple fact that at maximum range, the target vessel can be up to 15km from it's original position (if not further), so there you need to be able to able to either update the warheads targeting remotely (at risk of interference) or have within the warhead an ability to scan over 700km2 of sea surface (from a radius of 15km and assuming the ships could have gone in any direction) while it is doing Mach 10, which doesn't leave you a lot of time to locate your target.

All I am saying is let's not all go gooey over the "mach 10" numbers or the orchestrated tests. In a live fire situation, with the other side shooting back and making your life hard, things are very different.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: stumason

They're not super weapons by any stretch. But at the same time, just because we're the US, doesn't mean that they're pathetic and we can easily swat them out of the sky, like some people seem to think. We're going to be dealing with them in the Chinese backyard, which they will probably have dialed in to a faretheewell, making it that much harder.

One of the majorly overlooked things when discussing China and the Pacific is the fact that the US has no fixed, relatively safe bases in easy range of just about anywhere. That means that they're going to have to rely even heavier on tankers for TACAIR to be used. Large, vulnerable, unstealthy tankers. By being able to push the carriers even farther back, that reliance goes up, and it gets that much harder to hit the targets, except with B-2s, which will still need some level of support, even if it's fairly minor.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Definitely, I don't believe the US is invincible by a long stretch and they need to be very careful with regards to this and other weapons, I am just trying to restore balance to the prevailing view of "China announces Mach 10 missile - game over" which seems to be the common opinion around here.







 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join